Contrary to your
assertion, this "national problem" does NOT require a ban on
"assault weapons."

The Constitution wisely guarantees the
right of the people to own and use the types of weapons useful to a well-ordered
militia. In other words, military weapons.

This "national
problem" CANNOT be solved by limiting good-guy access to the tools necessary
to defend ourselves from the bad guys -- who will ALWAYS have access to
"assault weapons," meaning, of course, whatever weapon they choose to
assault us with.

We cannot preserve freedom by laws limiting freedom.
Since only good guys obey the law, anyway, laws banning guns will only apply to,
and limit the freedom of, good guys.

How in the world could disarming
good guys solve a "national problem" created by bad guys?

I'm going to go out on a limb here with a thought I've had that has
been planted and nurtured by a number of new books and articles, that I've
either read or reviewed. The thought is America is stuck in a troubling place
right now trying to honor it's old tradition of fierce personal
independence and the realities of modern life. It was barely over a hundred and
fifity years ago that 60 acres a mule and a strong work ethic was all that was
required for success. Now we have an econonmy where hadly anyone has a job that
doesn't rely on at least Inrastate commerce and most likely international
commerce. Yet we still foster an ilusion of just leave me alone I'll take
care of this. Most modern socieities have learned to trust the need for
collective action. Not America. If we have a gun violence problem it's
described as a good guy vs. bad guy problem..individualism..so just give the
good guys more guns. In reality it's a society problem, a problem that
reflects all the complexities of modern society. It's time for America to
face reality.

Should Americans have rocket launchers? Drones?
Tanks? All are armaments used by our military. What a sad country this would
be if everyone stockpiled these types of weapons just because the military uses
them.

Waaaa Waaaa.People in America are free to own guns to protect themselves! Whine,
cry, have a conniption fit and hold your breath until you turn blue. People in
America are free to own guns, get over it!

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed"

That's out guaranteed right. That is the Supreme
Law of the Land. That is the law that the Court upheld in 2010.

There can be no compromise.

Laws did not stop a madman from
killing school children. He was underage. He was not allowed to own pistols.
He was not allowed to buy ammunition. He was not allowed to take any firearm in
a "gun free" zone. He broke the law. NO LAW would have kept him from
killing. He proved that he had absolutely no respect for law, but now people
are wringing their hands telling us that if we just had ANOTHER law, that those
criminals who disrespect law would not be able to kill.

Look at the
handgun killings in Washington, D.C. and in Chicago where NO ONE except the
police could carry handguns. The laws were ignored. CRIMINALS aren't
stopped be laws.

How many freedoms do we loose before we prove that
laws do not make us safe from criminals?

Re: "Most modern socieities have learned to trust the need for collective
action."

Well, I would agree that too many modern societies have
been snookered into believing secular "collective action" can somehow
substitute for personal morality.

But, it can't.

Nor
can we make ourselves collectively safer by legislating individual
vulnerability.

Once I can no longer count on the moral scruples of my
fellows to prevent them injuring me, it becomes my responsibility to protect
myself and my family. Suggesting government can somehow fill that role is
deranged.

Human moral decisions are made one-by-one. Individual
people, who are individually responsible for those decisions, are the ones
making them, not a collective. We are endowed by our Creator with agency to act
for ourselves. That's why a hive mentality will never replace individual
human responsibility.

No matter how often liberals try. They just
can't come up with a way to completely take away our freedom of choice.

Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, Utah"the right of the people to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed"

==============

Mike, I love the way you cherry pick....

Heere's the
Ammedment in it's ENTIRITY;"A well regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and
bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

As part of "A well
regulated Militia," -- i.e., a State's National Guard, State and County
police and sheriff forces have the right to assault rifles, not you Billy-Bob
soldier cop wanna-bes.

BTW - that little word "infringed"
does not mean you can have or do anything you dare well feel like.It means
"confisgated".The government can not "confisgate" your
arms from off your property, Infringe doesn't mean the banning of
future sales of assault weapns, limiting caliber or clip capacity or restricting
access to those not deemed legally responsible [criminals, mentally ill, ect.]
shall be unchecked or unrestricted.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The
pro-gun people want to ignore the first clause. The anti-gun people want to
ignore the second clause. We can't ignore either one.

The
founders wanted all free white men to be armed so they could be called to form a
militia to repel foreign invaders and to suppress domestic insurrection. Look at
the militias that George Washington led to put down the Whiskey Rebellion as an
example. This was because the founders were adamantly opposed to maintaining a
standing army.

Since the end of WWII we have maintained a standing
army, which is one thing the founders would look on with absolute horror and
revulsion. One could make the point that this obviates the need for a militia.
That being the case, what is the reason for the second clause if the first is no
longer operative?

I'd for just once like to see you go
after the shredding and trampling of the Constitution by GWBush's Patriot
Act, and Citizen's United with 1/100th the zeal and rath you exhibit toward
any imaginary Constitutional trampling under Pres. Obama.

While we're on the
subject . . . the Constitution means what it says in real English, not what one
or another disingenuous think tank wants to shape it to signify in Orwellian
Newspeak.

The Second Amendment states its raison d'etre, in the
well-regulated militia clause -- the people need those military arms necessary
to act as a militia, when necessary. But, that clause in no way limits the right
to keep and bear clause. The Amendment states a right of the people, not of a
militia or a bloated, distant, central government.

Quite simply, it
protects the right of the people to possess and use military arms.

There is no other honest interpretation. The Supreme Court has ruled as
much.

The universe of arms protected by the Second Amendment begins
with those very weapons liberals currently want to ban. That it extends beyond
them is clear, as well, but to suggest the Second Amendment would countenance a
ban on weapons because the look military is the worst form of sophistry.

True defense of your home has
nothing to do with guns. Otherwise having the most guns in the world per capita
would have solved it.

True defense against tyranny doesn't have
anything to do with guns. Otherwise in your minds there is no logic to the
hysteria that the government would or COULD take your guns. Gun nuts obviously
don't believe just owning those guns prevents tyranny.

Both
ideas are flawed and fail.

Think differently and find new solutions.
There's nothing a gun can do for self defense that less or non lethal
solutions can't provide much more safely to your family yet they are never
mentioned.

No one suggests that scoiety acting as a collective is a substitute for personal
morality...a better word would be responsibility. Societies acting as a
collective rely more than any other societies on individuals acting responsibly.
And guess what they do..that's why they do better than us in education,
health care, mortatlity, upward mobility etc. Why do they act more
responsibly..because they decided as a society to function a certain way..and
why could they make such decisions..because they see government as an extention
of themselves..not their enemy. They've matured past the adolescent stage
of newly discovered individual freedom. To know why America is in the situation
we are in you don't have to look any further than most 16 year olds with a
newly minted drivers license and the family car.

QUOTE "Quite
simply, it protects the right of the people to possess and use military arms.

There is no other honest interpretation. The Supreme Court has ruled as
much."

Justice Scalia, arguably the most conservative of all the
Supreme Court dissagrees with you.

Scalia, a strict interpreter of
the Constitution, said there's an "important limitation" on the
right to bear arms.

"We think that limitation is fairly supported
by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and
unusual weapons'," Scalia wrote, in an opinion first cited by UPI over
the weekend.

Scalia reiterated that sentiment in July of this year
when he told Fox News that the Second Amendment leaves room for federal gun
control legislation.

In a nutshell, the NRA leadership and extremist elements promoting unregulated
gun ownership find mass carnage acceptable so to enable themselves to have the
tools for mass carnage. It's just one of those things. They say, "Get
over it." It's the price we pay, and to them it's OK. Shed a
fear tears when a mass shooting occurs and just say "No" to any
recommendations to make the community safer regardless of the attempt.

Too bad 20 little kids and 6 adults died. You just have to accept these
things happening because they want it this way. Don't say they mourn the
dead. They celebrate their victory in keeping reasonable gun safety legislation
at bay. And they will say the necessary words the next time a massacre occurs,
hold their gus up in defiance, and again say "No."